ACTIONS FOR CRIMINAL CONVERSATION.

[Principal Case, p. 272, this Vol.]

Alabama.-Dowdall v. King, 97 Ala., 635; s. c. 12 So. Rep., 405. (In an action for crim. con., plaintiff cannot recover for a venereal disease contracted from his wife on account of her association with defendant, in absence of allegations in petition of special damages sustained by reason of such fact.) Maine.-Doe v. Roe, 82 Me., 503; s. c. 20 Atl. Rep., 83. (A wife cannot maintain an action against another woman for debauching and carnally knowing her husband.) Minnesota.-Kroessin v. Keller, Minn., 1895, 62 N. W. Rep., 438. (A wife cannot maintain an action of crim. con. against another woman.) New York.-Woods v. Gledhill, 35 State Rep., 597. (Plaintiff required to give a bill of particulars, where complaint alleged that defendant alienated the affections of plaintiff's wife by means of "gifts, presents, promises, threats and seductive and deceitful arts and wiles.") Vermont.-Daley v. Gates, 65 Vt., 591; s. c. 27 Atl. Rep., 193. (Where the original declaration charged that defendant enticed away plaintiff's husband, per quod consortium amisit, held, that a new count filed charging defendant with criminal conversation with him with the same per quod, did not contain a new cause of action.)

COMPLAINTS IN ACTIONS FOR ENTICING AWAY SPOUSE.

[Principal Case, p. 272, this Vol.]

Colorado.-Williams v. Williams, Colorado, 1894, 37 Pac. Rep., 614. (In an action for enticing away husband, complaint need only allege the ultimate facts, without stating the arts made use of by defendant to accomplish the illegal purpose.) Connecticut.—Foot v. Card, 58 Conn., 1; s. c. 18 Atl. Rep., 1027. (A wife may sue in her own name for the alienation of her husband's affections.) Indiana.-Haynes v. Nowlin, Indiana, 1891, 29 N. E. Rep., 389. (A wife may maintain an action in her own name against one who entices her husband from her and thereby deprives her of his consortium.) Followed in Wolf v. Wolf, Ind., 1892, 30 N. E. Rep., 308; Holmes v. Holmes, Ind., 1893, 32 N. E. Rep., 932; Railsback v. Railsback, Ind. App., 1895, 40 N. E. Rep., 276; Reed v. Reed, 6 Ind. App., 317; s. c. 33 N. E. Rep., 638. (In an action by a wife for the alienation of her husband's affections by his parents, complaint held demurrable for failing to allege that the acts complained of were done maliciously.) Adams v. Main, Ind. App., 1892, 29 N. E. Rep., 792. (Allegation and proof of adultery is not necessary to sustain an action for alienating a wife's affections.) Iowa.-Price v. Price, Iowa, 1894, 60 N. W. Rep., 202. (A wife may sue for damages for the alienation of husband's affections.) Michigan.-Warren v. Warren, 89 Mich., 123; s. c. 50 N. W. Rep., 842. (A wife may maintain an action in trespass for the alienation of her husband's affections.) Missouri.-Clow v. Chapman, Missouri, 1894, 28 S. W.

Rep., 328. (Wife may maintain an action in her own name for enticement of her husband.) Nebraska.-Hodgkinson v. Hodgkinson, Nebraska, 1895, 61 N. W. Rep., 577. (Wife may maintain an action against a person who causes her husband to desert her.) New Hampshire.—Seaver v. Adams, N. H., 1890, 19 Atl. Rep., 776. (A wife may sue in her own name another woman for seducing and alienating the affections of plaintiff's husband.) New York.-Bennett v. Bennett, 116 N. Y., 584; s. c. 23 N. E. Rep., 17. (Wife may maintain an action against a person who entices away her husband.)

COMPLAINTS IN ACTIONS OF EJECTMENT.

[Principal Case, p. 280, this Vol.]

(1) Plaintiff's ownership, title, estate, etc.

(2) Description of premises.

(3) Defendant's possession.

(4) Mesne profits, incidental relief, etc.

(1) Plaintiff's ownership, title, estate, etc.

Arkansas.-Fagg v. Martin, 53 Ark., 449; s. c. 14 S. W. Rep., 647. (Held, that the deed on which plaintiff relied, and a state of facts to show a prima facie title, were sufficiently set forth and shown by a complaint, which alleged plaintiff's ownership, and defendant's possession, and exhibited as evidence of title a deed from the State land commissioner.) Arizona.-Oury v. Duffield, 1 Ariz., 509; s. c. 25 Pac. Rep., 533. (Held, that it was sufficient for complaint to aver that plaintiff, as administrator, was seised in fee and entitled to the possession of the premises, without averring possession or right of possession in his intestate.) California.Hutchinson v. McNally, 85 Cal., 619; s. c. 23 Pac. Rep., 132. (On demurrer, complaint cannot be aided by a general allegation of ownership, if the deraignment of title is set forth, and it fails to show plaintiff's right to recover.) Georgia.-Hobby v. Bunch, 83 Ga., 1; s. c. 10 S. E. Rep., 113. (No recovery can be had upon the title of a person from whom no demise is laid in the declaration.) Indiana.-Myers v. Jackson, 135 Ind., 136; s. c. 34 N. E. Rep., 810. (An allegation that plaintiff is the owner and entitled to possession, is sufficient as against demurrer; the remedy, if any, being by a motion to make the complaint more definite and certain.) Roberts v. Vornhalb, 126 Ind., 511; s. c. 26 N. E. Rep., 207. (Held, that plaintiff could not be required to furnish a more specific abstract of title, and a bill of particulars; since bills of particulars are not required in actions for torts.) Morgan v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 130 Ind., 101; 28 N. E. Rep., 548. (Where plaintiffs allege title in themselves specifically, a general allegation of ownership will not help them, if the specific allegations do not show title in them.) Ewing v. Lutz, 131 Ind., 361; s. c. 30 N. E. Rep., 1069. (Demurrer to complaint overruled which showed plaintiff's title to be based on a deed which was regular in form and founded on a valuable

consideration.) Iowa.-Van Sickle v. Keith, 88 Ia., 9; 55 N. W. Rep., 42. (Where the petition is based on the claim that the strip of land sought to be recovered was embraced within the description in plaintiff's grant, evidence of a conventional boundary and adverse possession are inadmissible, though allegations tending to support such facts are intermingled with the other allegations of the petition.) Kentucky.-Howard v. Lock, Kentucky, 1893, 22 S. W. Rep., 332. (A petition alleging that plaintiffs are the only children and heirs at law of the owner, who died seised of the property in 1869, does not show that plaintiffs were the owners of the land in 1892, when suit was brought.) Howe v. Saddler, Kentucky, 1894, 24 S. W. Rep., 277. (Held, that it was not error to reject an amended petition which merely sought to plead the evidence or origin of plaintiff's title.) Michigan.-Ludeman v. Hirth, 96 Mich., 17; s. c. 55 N. W. Rep., 449. (Where the declaration is defective because it does not set forth plaintiff's estate in the land, he should be permitted on the trial to amend it.) Minnesota.-Merrill v. Dearing, 47 Minn., 137; s. c. 49 N. W. Rep., 693. (Plaintiff may recover possession of land upon allegation and proof that he is equitable owner, but if he alleges only a legal title he cannot prove or recover upon an equitable title.) New York.Roberts v. Cullen, 40 State Rep., 672; s. c. 16 N. Y. Supp., 517. (Defendant held entitled to a bill of particulars showing what particular land was sought to be recovered and the nature of plaintiff's alleged title, but not to a statement of facts upon which said claim is based.) North Carolina.Leatherwood v. Fulbright, 109 N. C., 683; s. c. 14 S. E. Rep., 299. (Where recovery is sought upon an equitable title, it is essential that the complaint should set forth the facts upon which the same is grounded.) S. P. Geer v. Geer, 109 N. C., 679; s. c. 14 S. E. Rep., 297. Oregon.—Bingham v. Kern. 18 Ore., 199; s. c. 23 Pac. Rep., 182. (Under Ore. Code, sec. 318, complaint must allege that plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the property.) Johnson v. Crookshanks, 21 Ore., 339; s. c. 29 Pac. Rep., 78. (Where complaint alleged that plaintiff was the owner of and entitled to the possession of the premises, held, that the failure of the complaint to state the nature of plaintiff's estate was waived by an answer setting up new matter.) Mitchell v. Campbell, 19 Ore., 198; s. c. 24 Pac. Rep., 455. (It is only necessary for a complaint to allege the nature of plaintiff's estate in the property, that he is entitled to its possession, and that the defendant wrongfully withholds the same from him to his damage in a sum claimed. The property should also be described with sufficient certainty to enable possession thereof to be delivered in case a recovery be had.) South Dakota.-Lewis v. St. Paul, etc., Ry. Co., South Dakota, 1894, 58 N. W. Rep., 580. (Held, that a complaint alleging that plaintiffs owned and held the land in question by virtue of a trust deed made by the former owner to plaintiffs in trust for certain beneficiaries named, showed a sufficient title in plaintiffs to enable them to maintain the action.) Utah.-Jones v. Mommott, 7 Utah, 340; s. c. 26 Pac. Rep., 925. (Complaint held sufficient, which alleged that "plaintiff is, and at all times therein mentioned was, the owner of, and seized in fee of * 營 and that the defendant is in possession thereof, and unlawfully withholds the same from plaintiff to her damage.") Virginia.—Roach v. Blakey, 89

Va., 767; s. c. 17 S. E. Rep., 228. (Held, that it was sufficient to allege, that on a day specified, before bringing the action plaintiffs were possessed "each in fee simple absolute of an undivided share or interest in" the land, and that the action "is for the whole of the land so claimed, and not for any part or parcel" thereof.) Washington.-Belles v. Miller, Washington, 1894, 38 Pac. Rep., 1050. (The nature of plaintiff's estate in the lands held to be stated with sufficient definiteness by an allegation, that he was owner of the land subject to defendant's right to redeem, that he became owner under an execution sale to satisfy a valid judgment entered in the cause, and that such sale was confirmed, and setting forth the sheriff's certificate of sale.) West Virginia.-Jarrett v. Stevens, 36 W. Va., 445; 15 S. E. Rep., 177. (An allegation that plaintiff "was possessed in fee" of the land is a sufficient allegation that he claims in fee.) Wisconsin.Methodist Epis. Church v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 78 Wis., 131; 47 N. W. Rep., 190. (Plaintiff must aver that he is entitled to possession at the commencement of the action.)

(2) Description of the premises.

California.-Pierce v. Hilton, 102 Cal., 276; s. c. 36 Pac. Rep., 595. (Description is not bad for insufficiency, if it is capable of ascertainment.) Muir v. Meredith, 82 Cal., 19; s. c. 22 Pac. Rep., 1080. (Complaint held to contain a sufficient description, which called for a well ascertained beginning point from whence a line is to be run to a designated monument, a "station fence post," and then giving the course of every other call in the decription.) Hihn v. Mangenberg, 89 Cal., 268; s. c. 26 Pac. Rep., 968. (As against a special demurrer, complaint held sufficient which described the land as being in S. township, S. C. County, Cal., and bound on the northeast by B. Avenue, on the southeast by land of M. E., and on the southwest and northwest by S. creek.) Cole v. Segraves, 88 Cal., 103; s. c. 25 Pac., 1109. (Complaint held not demurrable for not alleging the county in which the premises were situated, where it specified the name of the town in which they were located; since the court will take judicial notice of the county in which the town named may be.) Florida.-Buesing v. Forbes, 33 Fla., 495; s. c. 15 So. Rep., 209. (If a surveyor would have no difficulty in locating the land sued for by the description in the declaration, it is sufficient.) Georgia.-Polhill v. Brown, 84 Ga., 338; s. c. 10 S. E. Rep., 921. (Where the declaration, and the deeds under which both parties claim, describe the land as lot No. 59, known as the Davis place, and it is shown that the Davis place was lot No. 69, the declaration may be amended accordingly.) Indiana.-Liggett v. Lozier, 133 Ind., 451; s. c. 32 N. E. Rep., 712. (The description of of the land contained in a copy of a deed attached to the complaint as an exhibit, but which is not the foundation of the action, cannot aid the want of description in the body of complaint.) Montana.-Haggin v. Lorenz, Montana, 1895, 39 Pac. Rep., 285. (The general description in complaint is controlled by the courses and distances stated.) New York.-Rowland v. Miller, 44 State Rep., 826; 18 N. Y. Supp., 205; 22 C. P., R. 25. (Complaint held demurrable, where the attempted description of premises in effect merely de

scribed a straight line.) Barley v. Roosa, 13 N. Y. Supp., 209; s. c. 20 Civ. Pro., R. 113. (Where complaint described 25 acres in a single parcel, held, that plaintiff could recover 11 acres thereof without amending his complaint.) Utah.-Darger v. Le Sieur, 9 Utah, 192; s. c. 33 Pac. Rep., 701. (Demurrer to complaint for its uncertainty in the description of the premises sustained, where the description was not sufficient to enable an officer on execution to identify the property.) Vermont.—Cushing v. Fenn, 63 Vt., 106; s. c. 21 Atl. Rep., 272. (In ejectment against a tenant holding over, the declaration described the premises as the dwelling and out buildings, "and a small piece of land adjoining the same."-Held, that it was sufficient to justify recovery of the buildings and garden, but that it was too indefinite to embrace a pasture connected with the garden, though the pasture was a part of the farm leased by defendant.) Wisconsin.-Ayers v. Reidel, 84 Wis., 276; s. c. 54 N. W. Rep., 588. (Description of the land in complaint is sufficiently certain, if by the aid of a competent surveyor, and persons knowing the monuments or objects mentioned as boundaries, the lands can be found.)

(3) Defendant's possession.

California.-McKissick v. Ashby, 98 Cal., 422; s. c. 33 Pac. Rep., 729. (A complaint, alleging the leasing of the premises to defendant; that the lease had expired, and that defendant refused to vacate the premises and has withheld, and still withholds the possession thereof, from the plaintiff -sufficiently avers that defendant is in possession.) Hihn v. Mangerberg, 89 Cal., 268; s. c. 26 Pac. Rep., 968. (Demurrer overruled to a complaint, which alleged that plaintiff was seized in fee of the reality, and that defendant was in possession, and against plaintiff's will detained and withheld the possession thereof.) Minnesota.-Gowan v. Bensel, 53 Minn., 46; s. c. 54 N. W. Rep., 934. (A general allegation that defendant wrongfully detains the possession can have no effect, where the specific facts alleged show him not to be in possession.) Rhode Island.-Whipple v. McGinn, 18 R. I., -; s. c. 25 Atl. Rep., 652. (Wrongful detainer must be averred.) South Carolina.-Tompkins v. Railroad Company, 33 S. C., 216; s. c. 11 S. E. Rep., 692. (Demurrer sustained to a complaint which alleged that defendant, a railroad company, unlawfully and without plaintiff's consent, took possession of a strip of plaintiff's land on which to construct its road, without alleging that defendant had not acquired a right to enter by the exercise of the power of eminent domain.)

(4) Mesne profits, incidental relief, etc.

California.-Johnson v. Visher, 96 Cal., 310; s. c. 31 Pac. Rep., 106. (In an action to recover the possession of the premises and the mesne rents and profits, it is not necessary to aver that the defendant received the rents and profits.) Missouri.-Morrison v. Harrington, 120 Mo., 665; s. c. 25 S. W. Rep., 568. (Petition in ejectment may be amended by the addition of a count praying for the cancellation of certain deeds by defendant of the land in controversy.) North Carolina.-Bryan v. Spivey, 106 N. C., 95; s. c. 11 S. E. Rep., 510. (One action may be brought against several